Cord Cutting: Inevitable or Could It Have Been Prevented?

[Space Cadet]

So, what prompted this question was today's news that Comcast is spinning most of their cable channels into their own company(our own Daikun has a thread about it). What was once unthinkable is now happening and my guess is that other media conglomerates will consider this movie. Of course, what's prompting this has been the years-long saga of consumers cutting the cord when it comes to cable television. This has caused the audience for cable(and really tv in general) to shrink to levels not seen since the early-to-mid 90's and while cable tv still brings in a profit, it's nowhere what it used to me.

That got to me thinking: Was there any way to either prevent cord cutting or at least stem the tide a bit? Or was it inevitable once a new technology like streaming got popular? Is there a way for both streaming and cable(or tv in general) to co-exist? I'm curious what is the situation is like in other countries besides America.

Also, I just want to mention it ahead of time but this is a not a thread to talk about fantasy mergers or acquisitions(i.e. Disney buying Warner-Discovery and Amazon at the same time, etc.), so please refrain from that. If you want to talk about mergers or acquisitions, it has to be ones that happened already or it makes sense in the context of this thread.

 

[Dantheman]

How would cable companies offering a la carte programming (You only pay for the channels you want and nothing else, you don't want something like TLC, you don't get it) have helped?

 

[Space Cadet]

How would cable companies offering a la carte programming (You only pay for the channels you want and nothing else, you don't want something like TLC, you don't get it) have helped?

It might have helped since people could just pay for the channels they're actually watching. Of course, the big media conglomerates would have hated that since they want the smaller channels to be tacked on with other packages. Personally, I didn't mind the large amount of channels because sometimes I could find something interesting to watch on a channel that I don't normally tune into, but that's a minority position.

 

[AdrenalineRush1996]

How would cable companies offering a la carte programming (You only pay for the channels you want and nothing else, you don't want something like TLC, you don't get it) have helped?

If it was like Sky's Now service, which I subscribe to, then yes I think it would've helped but honestly, that depends on how well it would work.

 

[SaturnReturn]

Yeah, it could've been prevented, if a few things changed:
-The cost of cable was significantly less. We must remember that when streaming first took off, Netflix was offering $7.99 a month for basically everything under the sun. Compare that to the ~$100 price tag of cable and it'd be a no brainer for most consumers. Of course, the rising of streaming prices and splintering of services has led to the cost of streaming to rise significantly, but for most consumers it's still the cheaper option. This I think was the biggest blunder of cable companies. Instead of trying to offer an extra-cheap basic option to compete, they rose prices to higher and higher levels for no reason other than greed (seriously, look at this and this for some examples). This is anti-consumer and the cable companies were appropriately punished for it.

-They integrated streaming and cable channels together. There's several live-TV streaming services like Hulu Live TV, YouTube TV, Pluto TV, Sling, Philo, Frndly, etc. If the channels themselves had been more collaborative with these platforms and offered a streamable option, we may have seen cable decline still but the companies and channels would simply adapt and keep their brands and schedules thriving to just a different audience. Unfortunately the splintering of all these services and unavailability of most channels has made this difficult. Hulu Live TV and YouTube TV are the only options that provide most of the main cable channels, but their prices are nearly as costly as cable itself, making them not a particularly great option.

-Eliminating the "zombie network" effect. As many here are aware I'm sure there's a large amount of channels which have given up on scheduling a diverse array of shows and pushing new ideas and instead just loop the same few programs over and over all day. Many networks have indirectly destroyed the value of their brand doing this. If cable networks wanted to compete with streaming, they'd need to offer something new and something different, rather than just endless reruns of the same few shows which can already be watched on those streaming services. Again, you're not getting a good return on investment to pay more for something that isn't any better.

Really, it all comes down to greed and cable companies not working to benefit the consumer. I love the experience of live TV and the brand these channels offered but cable is dying because it's actively working against what the consumer wants, and I can't sympathize with the companies shooting themselves in the foot. It really was their own fault, unfortunately. Can it be saved? I don't know, maybe? It's not too late, a lot of people still have cable, but already so many people have left it to where I don't think it'll ever be as popular again.

 

[Markus Nelis]

Cable would've still been popular if streaming services didn't exist. Even when cable is more expensive, people don't really have content to watch on other places if streaming wasn't a thing. Imagine if it took time for internet to evolve. Cable would to this day still be popular.

 

[cartoonnetworkpoke]

I mean look outside the US. Cable and pay tv is still doing well even with rise of streaming. If cable was cheaper this wouldn't be a problem. But now Streaming services are gonna get more expensive and pull the same tricks that these cable companies have done In the past. So we're back to square one lol.

 

[Francisque]

Cable would've still been popular if streaming services didn't exist. Even when cable is more expensive, people don't really have content to watch on other places if streaming wasn't a thing. Imagine if it took time for internet to evolve. Cable would to this day still be popular.

True, but I believe linear TV channels should still be available on streaming services
People, from time to time, want their "comfort zone" too

E.g. Disney channels on Disney+ (only if they exist elsewhere on cable TV; otherwise they would be as watching dry paint lol)

I mean look outside the US. Cable and pay tv is still doing well even with rise of streaming. If cable was cheaper this wouldn't be a problem. But now Streaming services are gonna get more expensive and pull the same tricks that these cable companies have done In the past. So we're back to square one lol.

It is?

It's actually going down too, just not as much

In the US cable TV has become particularly unwatchable though: people are tired of very long ad breaks, bland schedules and so on, given the alternative

You could've tricked Americans in the past, not now, with all the alternatives

This is a BIT less the case in many countries such as the European ones, where, if you pay, you're supposed to get SOME content a bit less invasive advertising
Plus, most European countries and beyond have public broadcasters, which show even less advertising by law (up to none on some such as the BBC and Scandinavian public broadcasters), and are generally appreciated for their higher quality

In any case, the advertising minutage here is also regulated on commercial channels

Also many European countries have, unlike the US, a healthy amount of varied FTA (free-to-air) channels, which don't correspond necessarily to "cable TV channels" (which you have to pay for)

Nevertheless, people prefer more and more to choose streaming to it; especially to a relatively blander "general linear TV offer", which is becoming blander and blander

 

[Daikun]

Eliminating the "zombie network" effect.

Out of curiosity, would that have been in any way realistic? There are hundreds of channels and I have a hard time imagining how they all could have avoided becoming "zombie networks" if they didn't have to rely on large chunks of reruns without labor laws getting involved.

 

[Markus Nelis]

Zombie channels can be useful when the big main channels won't air some of the shows anymore that used to be successful.

 

[SaturnReturn]

Out of curiosity, would that have been in any way realistic? There are hundreds of channels and I have a hard time imagining how they all could have avoided becoming "zombie networks" if they didn't have to rely on large chunks of reruns without labor laws getting involved.

I mean airing the same few shows over and over, like how MTV airs Ridiculousness and Catfish 24/7 and how Nicktoons is quite literally exclusively SpongeBob reruns now. A diverse schedule is what I mean; I'm aware that channels need to spend most of their time on reruns and that's always how it's been. It's just, a constant stream of reruns of the same single program is not good for keeping interest in a channel alive.

 

[Space Cadet]

Today, it was announced that Family Guy will be returning to Adult Swim after being gone for three years. This is in addition to the show airing on FXX, Freeform and Comedy Central. Our very own Jeff Harris has criticized this decision over on Bluesky because because the show will be spammed everywhere on cable and it shows why cord cutting is justified because the lack of variety on cable channels. Of course, it's a vicious cycle because variety is good of course but with cable channels losing subscribers and therefore money, there's no real incentive for them to really change. Thoughts?

 

[cartoonnetworkpoke]

What happens to streaming if the internet were to wiped out for a few days?